Order for Second Reading read.

Robert Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. Does he agree that local authorities have a vital role to play? Some of them, including, I am sorry to say, my own district council, think that if there is a climate change problem, it is to do with sunspots and nothing to do with the intervention of man. Therefore, they are reluctant to support the Bill, a consequence of which will be increased expenditure by local councils. What would he say to my district council? How could he prove to it that there is a link, which it is not sure about, between mankind's intervention, rather than sunspots, and the climate change problem?

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman makes a party political point, which he is entitled to do. I think that this Government's record in seeking to tackle climate change has been excellent, but I want us to work on an all-party basis on practical issues that can take the issue forward. I suggest that he concentrates on that aspect of the Bill today, rather than on other agendas.

Mark Lazarowicz: This is only a humble Back-Bench, private Member's Bill, and there are limits to how much I can achieve with it; but yes, it has certainly been fun introducing a Bill. I am not sure that Front Benchers always regard the introduction of Bills as fun, but I have certainly enjoyed introducing mine.
	I have been genuinely surprised at the level of support that the Bill has received throughout the country. There is a real wish on the public's part for the Government to facilitate the development of such activities. People want to contribute to tackling climate change, which is why it is important that the Bill proceeds and emerges at the end of the process—assuming that a Second Reading is granted—in sufficiently comprehensive a form to ensure that it makes a real difference.
	I have had some productive discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Minister for Energy. I shall hear in due course what aspects of the Bill the Government are happy with; there are doubtless other aspects about which they have reservations. I certainly look forward to working with them to try to get a Bill that reflects my aspirations, and the aspirations of those who sponsored it. I hope that during its subsequent stages—if it gets that far—we will recognise that the public genuinely want us to allow them to make this contribution to tackling climate change. It is important that we do not let them down—either today or during the Bill's future stages.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend knows my concern—we discussed it earlier. The Braintree scheme is admirable, but there are parts of the country where, due to the nature of historic building construction, many householders do not have the option of installing cavity wall or similar types of insulation. If a local authority, on its own initiative, offers a council tax rebate to those householders who install insulation, those householders get a double benefit—they save some fuel costs and they get their council tax rebate. However, without support from the centre, that council tax rebate is effectively funded by other members of the community who are not fortunate enough to be able to make the energy saving. Will my hon. Friend address that point?

Malcolm Wicks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on presenting an important Bill and a well-researched and considered case on climate change and sustainable energy. In the interests of time, which I know we all take seriously, I will not comment in detail on all that has been said—I hope Members will forgive me—but I will say that, at times, the talk here this morning has been as green as the House of Commons Benches. I find that significant.
	The private Member's Bill procedure is important. Some 10 years ago I had the opportunity through the ballot and the privilege through the House of introducing what became known as the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, with much support from the then Conservative health Ministers. I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith privately that if I, a mere Labour Back Bencher in those days, could present a Bill under a Conservative Government, surely it may be possible for a Labour Member to do so now.
	My hon. Friend is himself a renewable source of energy, as he moves around the Chamber simply to confuse me! [Laughter.]

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend might perhaps have been as concerned as I was recently during the informal European summit at Hampton Court a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister referred to putting much more emphasis in our energy policy on working with European partners. The reason why I am concerned—particularly in this multilateral, international context—is that it is very clear that the European Union constitutes one of the brakes on having a successful trade negotiation because of its attitude to the lack of agricultural reform. I would be very concerned, given the importance of persuading countries such as China and India, if too much of our energy policy was dependent on getting the whole of Europe moving in the same direction, given the negative effects that we have seen in our trade negotiations.

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fascinating though this discourse is, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has been speaking for 20 minutes and is yet to refer to a single proposal in the Bill. Is that in order?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has illustrated why it is always risky—not just risky but, for Conservative Members, unacceptable—to seek to interfere through legislation in such market forces, which would operate perfectly well without such intervention. I have no conceptual or principled opposition to the idea of people doing their own thing on micro-generation and having their own arrangement with the central supplier. That would work perfectly well, but we are apparently being asked to sign up to some socialistic, interventionist, central, regulated arrangement of the kind that is supposed to be anathema to us. I choose to dissent from that, if from nothing else.
	In clause 8, we come on to green energy certificates, the acme of intervention and regulation. Apparently,
	"it shall be the duty of a public authority to have regard to the desirability of . . . promoting microgeneration, and"—
	and here we come to the first laugh we have had in the whole Bill—
	"minimising the cost and administrative burdens for domestic customers in installing or operating".
	I do not know how anyone could keep a straight face while claiming that this sort of Bill could, by statute, minimise costs and administrative burdens. The whole Bill is about costs and administrative burdens, not least in the area that my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean just highlighted. We have a complete disjunction between the words in the Bill and the almost inevitable outcome, and that cannot make sense or add to the credibility of the parliamentary process. Clause 8 will require a fair bit of examination by the Committee and by the Minister.
	Next comes "Promotion of community energy". I am sure that that is a worthy aspiration to which we would all want to sign up, but quite how it will work, whether it is working, whether it is likely to work more, and whether people fully understand the concept remain to be seen. In essence, however, that goes in the right direction. We are all signed up, are we not, to local decision making, in theory at least, even if, in fact, one keeps finding in practice that it does not quite work that way and that all politicians, when it suits them, will seek to override local decision making when they think it inappropriate or going the wrong way. At least in this regard, though, let us say that we can be comforted that the Bill gives an explicit reference to localism in the promotion of community energy. That is something on which we can all feel rather warm and fuzzy.—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is helping me with a prompt, to which I may, on this occasion, pay some attention, just so that I know what it feels like.
	There has been some discussion of clause 10 and "Renewable heat obligation". It may be one of the more difficult areas in the Bill. Rather oddly, in all the paeans of praise heaped uncritically on the Bill by all the colleagues scrambling to say how much they supported it, there was, I thought, just a slight hint of unease about that part of it. I can see why. Requiring
	"suppliers of heating fuel to demonstrate that a specified proportion of the fuel they supply is derived from renewable heat sources"
	may be a pretty tall order, and it implies an underpinning of a degree of bureaucracy or intervention that it may be difficult to achieve.
	Then we have our old friend "establish targets", and we have been through all that before. We also have the dreaded "penalties". Sadly, these days, one can rarely have a Bill of this sort without the old enemy, "penalties", arising. I am all for incentives and encouragement, but when we get into penalties, it is a sad day. I wonder whether full thought has been given to what those penalties might be and on whom they would fall. Would it be reasonable that they fell on the people concerned, and what would happen if they did not pay? Hiding behind that, presumably, although it has never been spelt out, lies the threat of custodial sentences—who knows?—for contempt of court, or the like. Before we go down the penalties road, I urge colleagues to think carefully, including the Minister—and, indeed, the other members of the Committee, since I must not keep assuming that the Minister will have some sort of hold on the Committee. Of course he will not, and it will be up to him to persuade the Committee of his view, which he set out so ably earlier, and for the members of the Committee to respond to it. Then it will be for those of us present for Report to assess the state of the Bill after Committee. Today is just a preliminary canter across the broad provisions of the Bill. When we get down to the real nitty-gritty of the detail, in Committee and on Report, the serious business of scrutiny will begin. All the questions that have been raised today can be fully considered.
	We face a conceptual problem with this Bill. I am not sure that the case for climate change has been made satisfactorily. I have touched briefly today on the excellent work of their Lordships and the excellent book by Mr. Bjorn Lomborg. There is the important question about climate change, but there is also the issue of the extent of the causal connection between climate change and emissions, the breadth of possibilities that that gives rise to and the differential between the effects that it might have on temperature and on sea levels. That in turn gives rise to the important question of mitigation versus adaptation, although unfortunately that went unmentioned by hon. Members today. However, it must be of key importance to the effect that the policies in the Bill are likely to have on the standards of living of our people, the prospects for economic growth and the costs of mitigation. By implication, and more importantly, those policies will have an effect on the developing world, which is not only likely to be the main generator of emissions and the main cause of global warming, but is also much more likely to suffer from the effects of that warming. That is where technology development and transfer, and adaptation, come much more into play.
	Colleagues are entitled to think that the Bill is wonderful, but we have an obligation, when we seek to make law, to be careful about whether it is soundly based. Even more importantly, we must ensure that its policy thrust is in the right direction.

Robert Key: I support the hon. Gentleman's Bill. If one turns the pages of glossy magazines such as Country Life or The Field, one sees lots of wonderful, green houses which are very fuel-efficient, and they all cost about a million or two pounds. Would the Bill apply to ordinary, average-priced housing, which affects most of the people in this country? I hope it will. It is my ambition to live in the greenest house in Salisbury, and I am visiting my Royal Institute of British Architects mentor in Salisbury, Gerald Steer, in a couple of weeks to talk about the possibility of providing proper green houses—fuel-efficient houses—for the average house buyer, not just the rich.

Martin Horwood: I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the important initiative of promoting micro-generation. In trying to make micro-generation as commonplace as he describes, would it not be an exciting initiative to try to find out whether more social housing—provided by housing associations, arm's length management organisations and others, such as Cheltenham Borough Homes in my constituency—could incorporate micro-generation because that would have a double benefit? Not only would it help the environment, but reduce in the long term fuel bills for some of the least well off in our society.

Mark Harper: I shall come immediately to the Bill. Clause 2 relates to permitted development orders. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made a timely intervention about permitted development rights for telephone masts. I sound a note of caution because we probably all know from our constituencies about the trouble that they have caused. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) has sensibly anticipated a potential problem because clause 2(5) allows the Secretary of State to
	"make provision about conditions relating to the environmental impact of a small renewable energy development"
	such as appearance and noise.
	As I said in the previous debate, I am not an engineer, and I am not clear about one of the criteria for classifying something as a small renewable energy development being its power output—
	"the generation of energy of 10 kilowatts or less."
	I wonder whether some appliances that fulfilled that criterion would comply with the provisions about appearance and noise. The last thing that hon. Members want to do, through the best intentions, is to cause many unsightly units to spring up throughout the country through permitted development rights. We all know from our post bags the trouble that that can cause, especially when the planning system is powerless to do anything about it.

Mark Harper: I am slightly less concerned if that is the case. There is a difference between new build and existing dwellings.
	I am slightly worried about the language in the Bill, which refers to a
	"typical dwelling of the same type"
	having a meaning to be prescribed in future. I should prefer such meanings to be defined in the Bill.
	On clause 4, in relation to dynamic demand technologies, it is sensible to use technologies that use the power available more efficiently. It would be helpful if the Minister were to tell us if she was attracted by this part of the Bill, because one of the concerns expressed by the CBI and other business organisations is that if this winter is particularly harsh there might be restrictions on power availability. It might therefore suit the Government to have a wide availability of technologies that enable energy suppliers to cope more easily with not being able to produce to previous peak demand levels. We do not want to overdo it, however, because that would reduce the duty on power suppliers to supply the power that we demand. To some extent, that is sensible, but I do not want to start forcing people to make do with less power than they require.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on presenting a Bill that raises important issues relating to climate change, energy efficiency and housing.
	Members will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy express the Government's commitment to supporting micro-generation and improving renewable energy and energy efficiency, so I shall not repeat arguments that were covered in the debate on the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. I will, however, deal with important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test about the role of the housing sector. We know that housing is responsible for a significant level of carbon emissions, which is why it is so important to address energy efficiency and promote the take-up of renewable energy in both new and existing homes.
	We have already made substantial improvements in the energy efficiency of new buildings. Earlier in the autumn we announced new standards in building regulations, which will mean that the total energy efficiency of new buildings will have improved by 40 per cent. in just five years. That is extremely important. It means that we can plan to build more homes than the last Conservative Government planned to build, but with fewer overall emissions. It also means that householders' heating and fuel bills will be reduced. We need to go further, however. The Bill shows the way towards the lifting of unnecessary planning restrictions, which will allow the retro-fitting of micro-generation technologies for existing houses where appropriate. It also envisages a time when it will be commonplace for new houses to be fitted with such technologies, which would meet an appreciable percentage of a home's energy needs.
	The Government welcome the Bill's aims, but, as my hon. Friend knows, we have some worries about the detail and about the mechanisms for its implementation. We believe that they can be resolved in Committee, however, and it is on that basis that we support the Bill today.
	The Bill requires the Secretary of State to report on progress towards the energy efficiency targets in the Housing Act, and on the effects on fuel poverty. We already have mechanisms for reporting on energy efficiency progress, which we think could be incorporated in the process so that Parliament is kept up to date and we have an impetus to ensure that our progress continues. We also think it right for the planning system to play a larger role in improvements in energy efficiency. We have already set out a commitment to planning for renewable energy in planning policy statement 22 and its companion guide, which recommend greater use of renewables including micro-generation, domestic and other small-scale energy installations.
	Planning can play a further role in relation to individual homes. It is already possible to install some small renewable energy equipment without needing to apply for planning permission, including photovoltaic cells and solar panels. However, we understand the fear that local authorities can interpret the rules inconsistently, and the view that we could do more.We all recognise that appropriate safeguards need to be in place for neighbours on things such as size and noise, as the Bill recommends, but equally we think that it is possible to make it easier for householders to install a range of small renewable energy developments within permitted development, with those safeguards in place.

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a range of areas in which local discretion is important. It is an important principle within the planning system. There is a range of areas where local decisions need to be made to take into account local circumstances. There is also a national planning framework. A range of things are already included within permitted development to ensure that the planning system at local level does not get clogged up by unnecessary applications for very small-scale developments. That is the way in which the permitted development system has worked for a long time.
	Where we have concerns with the Bill is that it involves additional piecemeal amendment of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development Order) 1995. One of the reasons that we have patchy interpretation of the order at the moment, including around renewable energy, is that parts of it have become unnecessarily complicated, including piecemeal amendments over a long period.
	We have already begun a major review of permitted development to simplify the system and to allow appropriate minor development to be taken out of the planning system. We envisage consulting on possible amendments to the general permitted development order next year. That would allow proper consultation to take place about the right balance and safeguards that need to be in place. We believe that that is the right opportunity to look at taking forward the ability of householders to install a range of small renewable energy developments without specific planning permission.
	Therefore, we would like to discuss in Committee the right relationship between primary and secondary legislation on this issue. Permitted development is generally dealt with in secondary legislation, so that we can have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and technology. The Government support the need to promote better energy efficiency and the use of things such as micro-generation and renewable energy in new developments and new homes.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we want to improve domestic energy efficiency both across existing stock and new stock. That is why we think that the Bill raises some important principles. It also raises the issue of building regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is aware that we have certain concerns about the way in which that matter is dealt with in the Bill. We agree that building regulations are an important tool for improving energy efficiency and cutting carbon emissions. However, generally they do not specify particular technologies or ways of achieving standards. Instead, they specify outcomes and allow builders and developers flexibility about how to achieve those outcomes.
	That is an important principle because it encourages innovation and it does not prevent competition if new technologies or approaches come forward. It means that regulations do not hamper the take-up of new technologies that may not yet have been anticipated. Therefore, we would be uncomfortable about being committed by this Bill to specifying particular approaches, as opposed to specifying outcomes, within the building regulations.
	We also believe that there are additional ways we can promote micro-generation, such as through the code for sustainable buildings, on which we will consult shortly. We have just announced higher standards in building regulations on energy efficiency, too. Clearly, regulations need to be based on what is achievable in practice. We also propose to consider micro-generation as part of the review of existing building regulations that has just commenced. We believe that any concerns can be resolved in Committee, and we hope that we can have further discussions on the detail, including that aspect.
	We welcome the emphasis in the Bill on promoting dynamic demand technology and we are happy to support its Second Reading. It raises important issues and will contribute to improving energy efficiency in buildings and promoting new technologies to protect the environment. We look forward to discussing it in Committee.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the south Asian earthquake disaster that is slowly but surely turning into a catastrophe. I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development for being here to respond, as I know that he has a personal interest, as do many of his constituents, who have raised thousands and thousands of pounds to help the victims of the earthquake disaster in Pakistan, India and Kashmir.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) recently visited the affected areas with me as part of a delegation, with the UK charity Helping Hands and the Limbless Association in the UK, of which the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), among others, is well aware. I can honestly say that the four days we spent in Pakistan and Kashmir were four of the most harrowing days of my life. The places we visited included Abbotabad, Mensera, Bagh, Balakot and the Chathara plain, and the scenes were unbelievable. The stark facts speak for themselves. More than 70,276 are dead; more than 69,260 people are wounded; 3.3 million people are homeless; 1.3 million have lost their livelihoods; 15,000 villages, hamlets and townships are devastated; 6,000 schools are destroyed; 364 medical facilities are destroyed; and I could go on.
	Those are not just figures. That part of south Asia is like a war zone. Those figures are real people, just like us, our families and our constituents. I met three-year-old, four-year-old, six-year-old, and nine-year-old children who are amputees, with a leg missing or an arm missing. Children have been orphaned. Grandparents have been traumatised by seeing their entire family—children and grandchildren—wiped out. Ancestral homes have been destroyed. Children and adults are still in a physical state of shock more than three weeks after the earthquake, because of what they witnessed. Aftershocks have caused roads that had been cleared to be blocked again by landslides. Again, I could go on.
	I met heroic British citizens helping in the disaster zone, relief workers, British doctors, BT engineers, British nurses, Department for International Development staff, RAF Chinook pilots and personnel, and others doing their best to help. Of course, disasters emergency committee organisations are doing a great job, including Islamic Relief, Save the Children, the British Red Cross, Oxfam, Merlin, Christian Aid, World Vision and many more. Less heard-of British charities are also doing a brilliant job, including Helping Hands, Muslim Hands, Muslim Aid and others.
	I pay tribute to the British public and the British Government. Ordinary members of our communities have been phenomenally generous with their donations, and often it is the poorest in our constituencies who have been the most generous in giving charity. More than £30 million was raised from the British public alone in the first three weeks after the earthquake. Our Government, too, have punched above their weight, and the Pakistani Government and the people we met are very grateful for the help that we have given and have seen the benefits of the £33 million that we have donated. British expertise, British helicopters and British equipment have been out there from day one, and I pay tribute to those concerned.
	There has been a silver lining to the earthquake disaster. President Musharraf has announced that Pakistan will postpone the purchase of F-16 aircraft from the USA in the light of the disaster facing Pakistan and the region. We have also seen continued improvements in relations between India and Pakistan, which have led to the line of command being opened at five separate places. However, as I said earlier, the disaster is quickly and surely turning into a catastrophe.
	The British and other western media have lost interest and I am concerned that the full scale of the horror will not become known in the western world. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that the number of casualties continues to rise as new areas are accessed. Up to 30 per cent. of the earthquake affected areas remain inaccessible. Some 250,000 people are above the snow line and face a life-threatening situation.
	UNICEF estimates that more than 32,000 children may have died and that there are tens of thousands of children who are now in peril due to deteriorating weather, injury and illness. There are 120,000 children in the mountains still waiting for help, of whom 10,000 could die of hunger, hypothermia and disease within the next few weeks.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she is right. The relief agencies are amazing. I met people who should be treated as heroes: UNICEF, Save the Children, Islamic Relief, Helping Hands and others are doing a fantastic job. But we have never seen a disaster on that scale, so even with the best will in the world and the best planning and organisation it was impossible to be as organised at the outset as we should have liked. It is now five weeks later, however, and we know the scale of the disaster so it is important to try to take steps to address it.
	What can we do? In the short term, the priorities are clearly the emergency rescue and relief that have been mentioned. We also need early rehabilitation and reconstruction help, and I shall explain how I hope that our Government can help. First, on 9 December, a donors conference will be held in Pakistan. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, will attend and will ask for help from the international community. I hope that our Government do as they have always done and take the lead in putting pressure on other Governments to do more.
	Secondly, eight weeks are left of our presidency of the European Union and of the G8. Over the past few months, we have seen how much we could do, by leading from the front, to make poverty history: an example of Britain using her influence and expertise to persuade other countries to do more. I urge our Government to use the influence and reputation that they have gained as president of the EU and the G8 to do much more; for example, we could persuade the EU to include Pakistan in its generalised system of preferences plus.
	Thirdly, we could offer the same type of trade concessions as were rightly given to the areas affected by the tsunami disaster. We need to ensure that we help Pakistan stand on her own feet. Yes, Pakistan needs help immediately, but her people want fair trade. They do not want handouts; they prefer to earn their way out of the crisis. Every billion dollars of exports translates into 300,000 jobs in Pakistan, which has an impact on 1.5 million people, and shows how people can help themselves to recover from catastrophe.
	I subscribe to the view that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. As a member of the international family, we should be judged by how the victims of the earthquake disaster in south Asia are treated. I sincerely hope that DFID and the Government will lead the way in showing just how civilised and just we are.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that more needs to be done, and I shall come to her specific question shortly.
	It is crucial, however, that we continue to support the UN in the development of the humanitarian action plan to meet the immediate needs of those in difficult-to-reach communities. That plan, as well as what I have indicated already, includes the construction of 30 camps, the repair of vital damaged water supply systems and the installation of latrines, the establishment of temporary schools and the provision of heating and cooking facilities for 150,000 people in camps. Given the difficult access considerations, the plan also sets out the critical logistics requirements to reach affected populations.
	One of the things that hon. Members can continue to do to help the relief effort, as well as urging their constituents to continue to consider whether they can give support to the appeal made by the Disasters Emergency Committee, is to focus the attention of the House and, we hope, the media on the continuing needs of the people of Pakistan devastated by the earthquake. We need to continue to try to do everything that we can to keep international attention focused on the disaster.
	We have pledged £5 million to the United Nations flash appeal, but we are doing much more to support the UN. We have already provided about £10 million of direct and in-kind assistance to the UN, and we will provide further support in key sectors. Our support to the UN ranges from health, shelter, water and sanitation interventions, as well as supporting camp management, to vehicles, logistics, co-ordination and, importantly, helicopters.
	Our military has been providing crucial logistical assistance. The Ministry of Defence, as the House will know, has provided three Chinook helicopters and airlifted rations and water from Kabul, using a C130 aircraft, as well as 40 tonnes of vegetarian rations from Britain via NATO. The MOD has also helped to airlift two Puma helicopters from Spain to Pakistan in support of the International Committee of the Red Cross. About 120 medical evacuations have taken place on flights to and from the affected areas. We have also contributed £2 million for the NATO air bridge to transport priority relief items from UN warehouses.
	We have provided funding for a 75-man Royal Engineers light engineering unit to go to Pakistan next week. Among other tasks, the Government of Pakistan may ask the unit to repair bridges, clear roads and begin the rebuilding of schools, clinics, hospitals and other key critical facilities.
	The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) rightly highlighted in his intervention the need to continue to consider how we can improve the ability of the international system to respond to such crises. That has been one of the issues exercising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and is one of the reasons why we have argued during the past 12 months for the establishment of a central emergency revolving fund to provide quicker financial assistance to a variety of UN agencies. Instead of having to go around with the begging bowl, they will then have the assurance that, immediately when a disaster strikes, they can get support on the ground where it is needed.